Anonymous said...You make some points I can empathize with, Anon, but saying "I'm sorry" is not the same thing as saying "Forgive me." I've not heard that from JZ, who spoke as much from arrogance as he did from ignorance. I also have not seen any kind of plan from him on what exactly he intends to do to repair the damage--hunting with the Nuge doesn't cut it. In fact, the Fudd Gun Syndicate is circling the wagons as their own past sins are coming to light--and their response of last resort is to compare the justifiably furious to mental cases, which kind of adds fuel to the "terrorist" crack, wouldn't you agree?
[We all?] agree with the outrage over Zumbo's comments and believe the response of his sponsors is appropriate. However, I think we should take Jim at his word, that he spoke out of ignorance and will do his best to make up for it.
The results of this event include some ammunition for the Brady Bunch, but it also includes a gifted writer who has finally seen the light. Jim can be a valid champion for 2nd amendment moving forward. He understands the blind spot many hunters have and could be very effective in preaching to that particular section of the choir.
We need to congratulate the industries that responded to our outrage, but we then need to move on. Jim Zumbo, if he really understands, could be a tremendous help in educating the "sporting purposes" crowd.
It would be a storybook ending if the ultimate outcome could be as you suggest, but many of us are sick and damned tired of the AHSA/Hunters for Kerry types, who need to be exposed and shunned by the pro-gun community for the quislings that they are.
I can sympathize on a human level with a man losing as much as Zumbo has over this. But we are in nothing less than a fight for our lives and freedom, and punishment for dereliction of duty in the field is harsh by necessity. If the people who Jim Zumbo and David E. Petzal endorsed giving the power to ban militia-suitable rifles get their way, we'll all stand to lose a hell of a lot more than writing gigs and sponsorships.
Just ask Wayne Fincher. If we're going to feel bad for someone, I'd say he deserves a hell of a lot more consideration.
4 comments:
Mr Codrea,
With all due respect (i.e. none) to Mr. Zumbo, I read his original post and most of the ensuing comments, his "apology" and most of the ensuing comments, and his second "apology" and some of the comments (about a hundred) on Nugent's board. I remain baffled as to how he just does not get it.
I fear that as long as these folks (disparagingly called Fudds) flat-out refuse to so much as acknowledge that firearms are good for anything besides hunting, the rift between us will never heal. The man in question here has to be actively resisting getting a clue; the only other explanations are too horrible to say...
Peter d (AKA Peet)
Zumbo definitely still doesn't get it- he seems to be under the impression that people are angry with him because he thought that ARs weren't suitable for hunting.
The impression I get is that he still believes that nonsense about "legitimate sporting purposes".
http://crypticsubterranean.blogspot.com/2007/02/missing-point.html
The Washington Post has picked it up now.
I'm not sure I like Pat Wray's tone:
Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.
I know I didn't get my "training" from the NRA.
The next part sounds like pure media fabrication, to me:
If they did, a rift could emerge between hunters, who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have lots of passion but less cash.
Our enemies would love to exploit something like that.
You shouldn't like it, Kurt--I'll explain why in a post this morning.
Lemme get me coffee and I'll get to work...
Post a Comment